Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:28:14 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: jhell@DataIX.net Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gustau_P=E9rez?= <gperez@entel.upc.edu>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rc.d script to load kernel modules Message-ID: <4DF5134E.1020601@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20110612191639.GC15184@DataIX.net> References: <4DF3E98B.40108@FreeBSD.org> <20110612085649.GA11503@DataIX.net> <4DF49181.1000007@entel.upc.edu> <20110612185631.GA15184@DataIX.net> <4DF50CE8.4020606@FreeBSD.org> <20110612191639.GC15184@DataIX.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/12/2011 12:16 PM, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 12:00:56PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>>
>> Absolutely not. That would not fit into the way we do things at all, and
>> would essentially require /etc/rc to do the processing, which is a huge
>> step in the wrong direction.
>>
>
> Ok can you explain this ? I am not seeing how /etc/rc would all of a
> sudden have to jump in to do the proccessing anymore than it would with
> the original patch ?
Ok, what do you propose the mechanism should be to process all of the
*_load variables? And why do you think it's preferable to do it that way
rather than simply listing the modules to load? (Other than, "that's the
way it's done in loader.conf" which I don't think is important.) Oh, and
btw, one benefit of the list (albeit a minor one) is being able to load
them in order. An additional problem with *_load in rc.conf is that it
prevents any other rc.d script from using ${name}_load as an option
(which should be a hint as to another reason why this is a very bad idea).
> "That would not fit into the way we do things at all" funny because
> thats exactly how we have been doing things in loader.conf for some odd
> umpteen years plus. Unless I misunderstood how you meant this ?.
What do loader.conf and rc.conf have to do with one another? I'll save
you the time, absolutely nothing (except ".conf" of course). They are
completely different mechanisms processed by completely different back
ends.
I'm actually not trying to be rude here, this is just such a terrible
idea that I'm surprised someone as smart as you are suggested it. If
this explanation isn't sufficient, feel free to submit a diff that
implements your suggestion. Maybe working through it will make it more
clear.
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DF5134E.1020601>